[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!


File: 1766719552039-0.jpeg (92.6 KB, 768x384, IMG_3407.jpeg)

File: 1766719552039-1.jpeg (320.02 KB, 1297x700, IMG_3406.jpeg)

File: 1766719552039-2.png (417.77 KB, 1023x1662, Labubu-Alunya.png)

 

Ever since the retirement of Fidel Castro in 2006 ever self-described communist country (all five of them) has been a market-socialist economy. China and Vietnam seem to have taken a liking to it, North Korea seems to be indifferent, I don’t know anything about Laos, and Cuba seems to be reluctant to it. Is only supposed to be temporary for until the communist movement gets back on its feet or are we stuck with Labubus and billboards forever?

>>2614940
Its a necessary stage in the path towards a planned economy.

>>2614940
Quite possible, yes.

It's called social democracy with keynesian characteristics

It's the future of the liberal movement

>>2614945
Illiterate racist retard

File: 1766829373618.jpeg (87.45 KB, 610x914, 0zcxut2hpc6g1.jpeg)


>What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

Read Gothakritik

>>2614950
Read the Dengism Elder Scroll. Be amazed at the Dengism of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, before Deng was even born! Become Dengist-2nd-Worldist (synthesis). Abandon 1st worldism (thesis) and 3rd worldism (antithesis).

>>2614956
Hitler lives

File: 1766829847131.jpeg (238.62 KB, 1920x1080, gu.jpeg)


File: 1766829872585.png (480.09 KB, 1418x1418, ClipboardImage.png)

Tom why did you crop out the text Tom

>>2614959
If you think Deng, a man who fought as a Communist in the World Antifascist War, is "Hitler" you need to get your head checked. 🤣

Holy random quotemining.
Indicative of the quality is that you include stuff that was already debunked a trillion years ago.

>>2614947
> Diagreeing is racist
Holy idpol lol. Shut up liberaloid.

File: 1766830189642.png (544.53 KB, 1112x637, ClipboardImage.png)

it's not random, (except for a few that are in there as jokes, like the stock market quote) and it's not debunked.

File: 1766830284623.png (207.55 KB, 727x814, ClipboardImage.png)

problem?

File: 1766831925737.jpg (80.39 KB, 600x687, image.JPG)

Greatest communists:
- Otto von Bismarck
- Charles de Gaulle
- Franklin Roosevelt
- Emperor Meiji
- Park Chung-hee
- Lee Kuan Yew
- Juan Peron
- Getulio Vargas

>>2614979
remove vargas and park chung-hee and add kubitschek and nehru

"Marxism-Leninism is not a dogma, it is a guide to action and a creative theory. So, Marxism-Leninism can display its indestructible vitality only when it is applied creatively to suit the specific conditions of each country. The same applies to the experience of the fraternal parties. It will prove valuable to us only when we make a study of it, grasp its essence and properly apply it to our realities. Instead, if we just gulp it down and spoil our work, it will not only harm our work but also lead to discrediting the valuable experience of the fraternal parties." - KIM IL SUNG
''On eliminating dogmatism and
formalism and establishing Juche
in ideological work''
Speech to Party Propagandists and Agitators
December 28, 1955
https://www.marxists.org/archive/kim-il-sung/1955/12/28.htm

>>2614954
Can anyon explain to me why mls favourite Marxist quotes are those vague enough that they can be twisted into justification of the market and capital existing?

File: 1766835300611.png (2.58 MB, 2704x2064, retard squisher.png)

>>2614954
< Quotemining bad because it takes out of context pieces of text and uses them to support and imply things the author didn't
> Ok, but what if I take another quote?

>>2615014
>>2615014
>Justify capital existing

You have a baby brain. A little tiny baby's brain.

>>2615014
MLs? Where?

>>2615021
China is capitalist, nakedly so. It's called social democracy with keynesian characteristics.
Your type only gives them a pass because you got orientalist brainworms.

>>2614940
You're a total fucking retard if you think communism is about instantly disappearing the mode of production or mechanism of distribution. I cannot believe how hard this is to grasp for most of you. That you think communism is when no McDonald's. I mean it really baffles me. Is communism a religion for you all? Do you just take some essential need for magical thinking and apply it to some contemporary perceived ideology?

>>2615025
I want you to please… PLEASE…
Please fucking Jesus Christ Lord above
Understand what the difference is between
Communism as a mode of production
And communism as an ideology and praxis in the Marxist sense.

>>2615026
Communism actually requires abolishing class society, wage labour and commodity production at the bare minimum.
Reverting to capitalism for 40+ years amd calling that socialism because you made a pinky promise you're eventually going to do anything of the above while moving in exactly the opposite direction is a fucking joke.

>>2615028
Communism requires a certain mode of production you super retard. If you don't even bother moving towards it, then you're delusional or lying.

>>2615032
You are a fucking brainlet holy shit


>>2614945
falsenvke

>>2615020
What I find frustrating is that I am accused of "quote mining" and "taking quotes out of context" but my interlocutors are simply making declarations. They offer no corrections to my statements. They do not show my quotes in their "correct" context that I supposedly took them "out" of. They do not show how I have misunderstood or misinterpreted the quotes. They simply declare "you are quote mining and those quotes are out of context!" and dust off their hands.

I think the quotes I have provided are in a clear context with source provided. I really do think Marxism-Leninism is not a dogma but a creative guide to action. I do think situational awareness dictates that compromises have to be made on a strategic basis sometimes, not due to the total abandonment of Marxism, but because of the need to protect the gains made so far. What you may regard as opportunism and betrayal others may regard as the non-dogmatic and creative application of Marxism-Leninism to local conditions. But I want to see us as on the same team here. We are solving a puzzle together. We need to come up with a truly scientific way to apply Marxism-Leninism creatively and strategically to local conditions without becoming opportunistic. Rather than calling me a retard please teach me something. Help me to see, if I am wrong, the error of my ways. I am always willing to evolve my views and take in new information.

File: 1766839726912.png (198.95 KB, 850x400, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2615032
I mean… can you please… please for the love of god read literally anything ever

>>2615032
>communism requires a certain mode of production

You are a fucking retard

>>2615028
>Communism as a mode of production
>And communism as an ideology and praxis in the Marxist sense.
<communism as an ideology
Lmao

>>2614961
Because I thought the image was funnier alone, and I thought I would answer my own question.

keynes was a marxist
all of his students spied for the soviet union
keynesianism is just another path to communism

>>2615212
good morning milei

markets and economic planning have been around since ancient fucking Egypt realistically most economies will have both before and after the capitalist mode of production.

>>2615254
whats the cool third option your alluding too then?

Leninists get so mad when someone suggests there might be more to communism than just nationalization and eventual capitulation to capitalists.

you don't like Chinese socialism? then move, libtard

>>2615361
Not really. People get upset at the pragmatic compromises being made by the few nations which have had proletarian revolutions. They creatively apply Marxism to their local conditions, and, to protect their gains, compromise in other areas based on tactical and strategic considerations. These compromises are being made in the context of a global system which is still very capitalist and imperialist. Unless you have a way to make proletarian revolution break out simultaneously in all the countries of the world, especially the richest and most developed, the countries which have had proletarian revolutions will continue to make compromises not based on betrayal of principles, but based on practical considerations and creative application of theory to local conditions. To get angry about this strikes people as an ultra-left error because if you seized power in your own country, you would be forced to make similar considerations.

It's the present, because everything else has crumbled. It's a symptom of the degradation of the left globally after losing the references of the last century.

>>2614979
I have respect for Lee Yew.

>>2614940
Yes but only for nonwhite nations.

The truth of the matter is most people do not care how many walls of text you can type about how the pre-revisionist USSR was actually great. People look at results. The "pure" forms of rule by communist parties all failed while the most notable example of market socialism in history is quickly becoming the most powerful country in the world.
China is walking a tightrope and their success is by no means guaranteed, nor are they currently an ideal country to live in, but it's the only alternative to capitalism that's shown itself to be plainly viable in the past few decades without requiring mountains of argument that most people, even self-declared socialists, will never care about.

>>2614940
>Market-Socialism the future of the socialist movement or only temporary?
Its a necessary stage for feudalist countries but for advanced economies like those in the 1st world they can already move towards planning especially now that we have computing power and AI for it.

>>2617249
>we have computing power and AI for it
This is completely vibes based. ML is not magically better than existing methods at solving mathematical optimization problems.

>>2615028
If the CPC is so communist why aren't they pursuing communism as a mode of production

>>2617259
>ML is not magically better than existing methods at solving mathematical optimization problems.
Never said this nor implied. Contain your anti-AI autism.

>>2617438
You did imply it, because it is the only useful way that more computing power could be applied to the problems of economic planning. What part of it do you think we've failed to figure out that AI will suddenly solve?
And I'm not anti-AI at all, I'm just realistic about what it can actually do while 99% of the discourse from both the pro and anti sides just treats it as a vague idea that they can mold into whatever shape they want.

>>2614940
>or are we stuck with Labubus and billboards forever?
I don't see why that's a bad thing. I mean billboards can be kind of tacky, but what's wrong with Labubus? Maybe the Russians can tell us?

On a moment to moment basis, there's nothing wrong with markets per-say, so long as the core of the economy stays centrally planned. I would actually go so far as to say the production of luxuries is where market socialism succeeds the most. It's easy to account for how much of a thing people need, to know how many houses to build, how many roads to pave, etc. But things that people merely want, things like Labubus, are a lot murkier. It's hard to know how much subjective demand for something exists at any given time because different people have different tastes, and a lot of the time they're bad at articulating quite what they want until it's there in front of them. Currently, markets have been the best answer to this murkiness that we've been able to muster.

The main concern with market socialism, at least as it exists in contemporary AES states like China, is that it does, in fact, allow for the existence of the bourgeoisie, albeit in a limited capacity. Thus far, they've been able to keep them on a leash, but there is a risk of reaction inherent in having them around.

>>2617239
>while the most notable example of market socialism in history is quickly becoming the most powerful country in the world.
To be fair, much of that is really just the US running out of its post-WWII inertia. It's not like China has, or is even projected to have, the same kind of insane grip on the world that the American Empire did in the 90s and 2000s. And its growth was pretty gradual, going all the way back to Deng.

>>2614950
based image will trigger the dengoids

>>2617587
>On a moment to moment basis, there's nothing wrong with markets per-say, so long as the core of the economy stays centrally planned. I would actually go so far as to say the production of luxuries is where market socialism succeeds the most. It's easy to account for how much of a thing people need, to know how many houses to build, how many roads to pave, etc. But things that people merely want, things like Labubus, are a lot murkier. It's hard to know how much subjective demand for something exists at any given time because different people have different tastes, and a lot of the time they're bad at articulating quite what they want until it's there in front of them. Currently, markets have been the best answer to this murkiness that we've been able to muster.

yeah but you dont need capital goods market for that only a consumer market which feeds back to state production

>>2617504
Your arguing against strawmen. I implied AI is useful for predictive modeling like when amazon ships commodities to warehouses before you buy them. This would prevent bullwhip shocks in the economy when consumer preferences change.

>>2615008
keep park chung hee and vargas

>>2617587
>The main concern with market socialism, at least as it exists in contemporary AES states like China, is that it does, in fact, allow for the existence of the bourgeoisie, albeit in a limited capacity. Thus far, they've been able to keep them on a leash, but there is a risk of reaction inherent in having them around.
Wrong. In Communist China, the bourgeoisie has been eliminated.
>I would actually go so far as to say the production of luxuries is where market socialism succeeds the most. It's easy to account for how much of a thing people need, to know how many houses to build, how many roads to pave, etc. But things that people merely want, things like Labubus, are a lot murkier. It's hard to know how much subjective demand for something exists at any given time because different people have different tastes, and a lot of the time they're bad at articulating quite what they want until it's there in front of them. Currently, markets have been the best answer to this murkiness that we've been able to muster.
You correctly admit the perfection of Communist commodity production and distribution. Labubu
is proletarian article of consumption, not luxury. Communist commodity exchange precludes bourgeois category of luxury. Labubu is rejection of malthusianism and povery by the masses; testament to capability of Communism to uplift society with mass-line socialist culture.

You must also admit that the path forward is not less Communist markets, but bigger, stronger Communist markets.

>>2617504
>it is the only useful way that more computing power could be applied to the problems of economic planning. What part of it do you think we've failed to figure out that AI will suddenly solve
you just said it. theres nothing to solve in the sense of a formula to find, the formulas exist and its exactly computing power that held back previous attempts at planning

>>2619065
Calculation problem is only one of the many problems facing planning.

>>2619072
calculation problem isn't a problem

>>2619087
Used to be in 1920's when it was presented. I made a list for you of all the economic problems facing planned economy that need to be addressed one way or the other.

I. Information & Calculation Failures
> The Economic Calculation Problem (Absence of rational price signals)
> The Local Knowledge Problem (Inaccessibility of dispersed, tacit, and fleeting data)
> Valuation Complexity (Inability to algorithmically determine subjective consumer value)
> Feedback Loop Latency (Time lag between demand shifts and plan adjustments)
> Computational Intractability (Inability to process infinite variable interactions in real-time)

II. Incentive & Behavioral Failures
> The Soft Budget Constraint (Absence of bankruptcy risk and financial discipline)
> The Ratchet Effect (Disincentive to exceed quotas or improve efficiency)
> Principal-Agent Conflict (Managerial capture of state assets for personal benefit)
> Systemic Risk Aversion (Penalties for failure outweigh rewards for innovation)
> Target Fixation / Goodhart’s Law (Gaming metrics: sacrificing quality for quantity)

III. Political & Power Distortions
> Rent-Seeking by Planning Authorities (Resource allocation for political loyalty rather than efficiency)
> Dictatorship of the Producer (Consumer preferences subordinated to State/Military goals)
> Institutionalized Data Falsification (Systemic lying by lower management to meet targets)
> Bureaucratic Ossification (Resistance to structural change by entrenched elites)
> The "Nomenklatura" Effect (Creation of a privileged class that extracts value)

IV. Evolutionary & Dynamic Deficits
> Lack of Evolutionary Selection (Inability to purge "unfit" or inefficient firms)
> Suppression of Variation (High barriers to entry for new ideas or unauthorized entrepreneurs)
> Allocative Rigidity (Capital trapped in "zombie industries" to preserve employment)
> Dependency on Shadow Markets (Reliance on illegal "gray" markets to fix formal inefficiencies)
> Dynamic Stagnation (Failure to transition from extensive to intensive growth)

>>2619089
>Used to be in 1920's when it was presented.
the ecp claims that calculation is impossible in principle

>>2619089
>I made a list
or did chatgpt do it for you
> The Economic Calculation Problem
right from the beginning, uncritically repeating (or getting chatgpt to repeat) capitalist propaganda. listen to cockshott:

>>2619122
> The Economic Calculation Problem
This is the least of the problems facing planned economy. Read slowly and carefully the list.

File: 1767170869300.png (691.97 KB, 1182x1096, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2619124
>This is the least of the problems facing planned economy. Read slowly and carefully the list.
i stopped right at the beginning of your AI generated list because the very first thing on the list was apologetics from Von Mises that's been addressed by Marxism hundreds of times

>>2619122
>The video concludes that Mises was wrong. With modern algorithms and hardware, socialist economic calculation is not only possible but, in Cockshott’s words, "almost trivially easy"
No shit. Couldnt care less about this whole argument.

>>2619127
>No shit. Couldnt care less about this whole argument.
maybe next time don't put "The Economic Calculation Problem" at the top of your list or at least vet the output of your LLM slop before copypasting it

>>2619089
most of your list (ignoring the ECP) are problems that already exist under capitalism but this one especially makes me laugh:
> Systemic Risk Aversion (Penalties for failure outweigh rewards for innovation)
buddy… the soviets invented the science of innovation. Genrich Altshuller. TRIZ. This methodology is now used by capitalist firms all over the world. Look into TRIZ. read a few books about TRIZ. innovation is a solved problem.

>>2619133
>Systemic Risk Aversion (Penalties for failure outweigh rewards for innovation)
>Lack of Evolutionary Selection (Inability to purge "unfit" or inefficient firms)
Feel free to propose solutions to these.

>>2619089
Since you used AI, let me help you.
Socialist economists like Paul Cockshott provide detailed counterarguments to standard criticisms of planned economies, focusing on technological solutions and theoretical rebuttals. The following analysis addresses your points category by category.

I. Information & Calculation Failures

The foundational argument against socialist planning is the Economic Calculation Problem (ECP). Austrian economists like Mises argued that without market prices for capital goods, rational allocation of resources is impossible. Socialist economists challenge this on multiple fronts.

· Economic Calculation Problem: Cockshott and others argue the problem is not one of principle but of technique. They propose using labor-time calculation as a rational, non-monetary unit for valuing goods and planning production. This approach, combined with modern computing, aims to solve the allocation problem directly.
· Local Knowledge Problem: The Austrian argument that knowledge is dispersed, tacit, and fleeting is seen as overstated. Proponents of cyber-communism argue that modern information systems, sensors, and democratic feedback mechanisms (like consumption councils) can gather and process the necessary local data, effectively centralizing what is needed for rational planning.
· Computational Intractability: This is a primary focus for Cockshott. He argues that the computational task of planning a modern economy, framed as a massive linear programming problem using input-output tables, is well within the reach of contemporary supercomputers. Critics like Alexander Nove once argued such calculations would take "millions of years," but Cockshott, a computer scientist, contends this is no longer true.

Core Theoretical Rebuttal: A key meta-argument is that the Austrian School incorrectly frames the economic problem as purely entrepreneurial and subjective. Socialist theorists argue it can be reconceived as a computational and engineering challenge—optimizing resource use to meet democratically determined needs—which technology and new institutions can solve.

II. Incentive & Behavioral Failures

Critics argue planned economies inherently create perverse incentives. Socialist responses often propose alternative institutional designs to align individual and social goals.

· The Ratchet Effect & Target Fixation: This describes the perverse incentive where managers hide their true capacity to avoid having future targets raised. Socialist planning models attempt to counter this by moving away from output-based rewards. In systems based on labor-time calculation, for example, a core incentive is to reduce the socially necessary labor time for a task, with rewards for innovation and efficiency gains shared socially.
· Soft Budget Constraint & Principal-Agent Conflict: These are acknowledged as serious practical challenges in historical planned economies. The proposed solution is not just technological but political: deep democratization of the workplace and planning process. The argument is that when workers collectively manage enterprises and communities have a direct say in planning, the "agent" (the workforce/manager) is also the "principal," reducing conflicts. Transparency in a fully computerized planning system is also suggested as a check against managerial deception.

III. Political & Power Distortions

This category deals with the degeneration of planning into bureaucracy and elite privilege. Socialist responses are largely political and institutional.

· Rent-Seeking & Bureaucratic Ossification: These are not seen as inherent to economic planning but as pathologies of an unaccountable state bureaucracy. The prescription is radical democratic control, where planning authorities are directly accountable to worker and consumer councils. This aims to ensure resources are allocated for social need, not political loyalty.
· The "Nomenklatura" Effect: Similarly, the creation of a privileged class is viewed as a betrayal of socialist principle, not an inevitability. The counter-model is a society with strict income equality (e.g., based on labor tokens for hours worked) and the absence of private property in the means of production, designed to prevent the extraction of surplus value by an elite.
· Institutionalized Data Falsification: Cockshott and Cottrell address this directly. In a transparent, computerized system where reported production data (labor inputs) is checked against physical outputs and consumer demand signals, systematic lying becomes harder. Discrepancies can be algorithmically flagged for investigation.

IV. Evolutionary & Dynamic Deficits

Here, the critique is that planning stifles innovation and adaptation. Socialist economists argue for planned, systemic innovation.

· Lack of Evolutionary Selection / Suppression of Variation: The market's "creative destruction" is replaced by conscious, democratic selection. Inefficient "zombie industries" are not kept alive by financial markets but can be phased out or retooled by social decision. Innovation is fostered not by competitive entrepreneurship for profit, but through publicly funded research and development institutions and by rewarding workers who propose efficiency gains.
· Dynamic Stagnation & Allocative Rigidity: The charge that planning leads to extensive (resource-adding) rather than intensive (efficiency-focused) growth is countered by the logic of labor-time minimization. The central goal of the system becomes producing the desired consumption bundle with the least total labor, creating a built-in, system-wide driver for intensive technological progress.
· Dependency on Shadow Markets: The existence of gray markets under historical socialism is admitted, but framed as a symptom of a poorly designed or incomplete planning system. A fully realized, democratically responsive, and computationally efficient plan that meets consumer needs would, in theory, eliminate the rationale for such markets.

In summary, modern socialist responses to the calculation debate pivot on two pillars: the potential of information technology to solve complex allocation problems and the necessity of radical economic democracy to solve incentive and power-distortion problems.

I hope this detailed breakdown provides a clear picture of the socialist counter-arguments. If you are interested in a deeper dive into a specific model, such as Cockshott's labor-time calculation or the cybernetic planning proposals, I can provide more focused information.

>>2619140
TRIZ actually solves first problem I presented so I will focus on this.

>Lack of Evolutionary Selection / Suppression of Variation: The market's "creative destruction" is replaced by conscious, democratic selection. Inefficient "zombie industries" are not kept alive by financial markets but can be phased out or retooled by social decision. Innovation is fostered not by competitive entrepreneurship for profit, but through publicly funded research and development institutions and by rewarding workers who propose efficiency gains.


The argument replaces the brutality of the market (which is cruel but efficient at error-correction) with the gridlock of politics (which is "kind" but terrible at error-correction).

Market Selection: "You are inefficient. You die." (Ruthless evolution).

Democratic Selection: "You are inefficient, but you vote. Here is a subsidy." (Evolutionary stasis).

>>2619140
To give my personal opinion: Most of the "problems" are basically small bumps made to seem like mountains especially when it comes to the calculation problem. The only thing the ecp can be credited for is the simple fact that it established the economy as basically a mathematical problem but not even in this regard it is new, you could say this has been known since Marx and you could go back probably much further. Most of these problems are constant problems also for "market" economies like the black market and overall I would argue that these economies introduce further problems that are very specific to it like artificial scarcity, anarchy of production leading to centralization, inflation, unaffordable housing etc…

>>2619140
This is a high-quality, accurate summary of the modern "Cyber-Socialist" position (specifically the work of Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell). The AI correctly identifies that modern socialists have moved the goalposts from "philosophy" to "engineering."

However, this response reveals a glaring fragility. It relies on a "Techno-Utopian" assumption: that if the math works, the humans will behave.

Here is a critical analysis of that response through your systemic frameworks:

1. The "Garbage In, Garbage Out" Problem (The Realpolitik Gap)

The AI correctly notes that Cockshott argues supercomputers can solve the linear programming equations for the whole economy.

* The Flaw: It assumes the input data is valid.
* The Realpolitik Critique: In a conflict-based system, information is a weapon. If a factory manager's livelihood depends on meeting a plan, they will feed the "sensors" false data. Unless the computer has a sensor on every single atom in the economy (total surveillance), human entry is required.
* Conclusion: Computability \neq Verifiability. You can have the world's fastest processor, but if the inputs are politically manipulated, the output is just "efficiently calculated nonsense."

2. The "Meetings" Problem (The Evolutionary Gap)

The AI states that "radical democratic control" and "worker councils" will solve the Principal-Agent problem.

* The Flaw: This ignores the coordination costs of democracy.
* The Evolutionary Critique: Evolution requires speed. If every decision on resource allocation requires a "consumption council" meeting or a worker vote, the system's "OODA Loop" (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) becomes glacially slow.
* Universal Darwinism: A market system acts like a neural network; decisions are parallel and decentralized. A "democratically planned" system acts like a serial processor; decisions must queue up for approval. In a competitive geopolitical environment, the slower system loses.

3. The "Labor Theory of Value" Trap (The Economic Gap)

The AI mentions "labor-time calculation" as the unit of account (replacing money).

* The Flaw: This relies on the classical Marxist Labor Theory of Value (LTV), which holds that value is objective (hours worked).
* The Subjective Critique: Value is subjective.
* Example: If I spend 10 hours baking a mud pie and 10 hours baking an apple pie, the "labor tokens" are the same, but the value to society is radically different.
* The Consequence: A planned system based on labor time creates an incentive to maximize effort, not utility. You get an economy full of "hard work" that produces things nobody actually wants.

4. The "Iron Law of Oligarchy" (The Political Gap)

The response argues that "radical democracy" prevents the rise of a new Nomenklatura (elite).

* The Sociological Critique: Robert Michels’ Iron Law of Oligarchy states that all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they start, eventually develop a ruling oligarchy because the "masses" cannot manage the complexity.
* The Reality: The "system administrators" who program the supercomputers and the "experts" who interpret the data become the new ruling class. They hold the keys to the algorithm.
Summary Verdict

The ChatGPT response is theoretically robust (it correctly explains what Cockshott believes) but systemically fragile.
It essentially argues:

> "The engine blew up last time because we didn't have a fast enough microchip (Computability) and the drivers were mean (Democracy)."


Your frameworks suggest:

> "The engine blew up because the design violates the laws of physics (Information Entropy) and biology (Self-Interest)."


Would you like to explore the "Cybernetic" angle further—specifically how Project Cybersyn in Chile attempted (and failed) to implement exactly what Cockshott proposes?

>>2619156
Forgot to add: The Soviets used very likely the crudest method of planning and they did this with fucking pen and paper for atleast the early period. What was the result: A besieged superpower that rivaled the largest superpower with many times the resources, I would argue that even China doesnt have the influence now that the Soviet Union had at its peak, maybe if they are successful with Taiwan that might change.

>>2619136
those two contradict one another. on the one hand you say that under socialism firms will be punished with too many "penalties for failure"

on the other hand you say there is an inability to purge unfit or inefficient firms.

Which is it?

Chinese communists are marxists
.
>Insert quote about how nothing is eternal in the eyes of diamat, etc

>>2619165
>>2619149
Ok, this is kinda funny. Didnt know that the bait worked lol.

>>2619169
>Which is it?
Both. Democratic decision making (Principal) will preserve inefficient industries while industrial managers (Agent) have very little if any incentives to apply inventions accomplished with the TRIZ system.

File: 1767174473963.png (324.59 KB, 1024x675, Lenin-facepalm-1024x675.png)

>>2619172
Also in the future stop disguising clanker posts as your own. Its embarrassing. If you want to have an argument with an AI, you can do so on your own, not shit up this thread.

>>2619179
>le clanker memme post facepalme memme
Didnt disguise anything with my post.

>>2619178
>Both. Democratic decision making (Principal) will preserve inefficient industries while industrial managers (Agent) have very little if any incentives to apply inventions accomplished with the TRIZ system.
>Democratic decision making (Principal) will preserve inefficient industries
Why?
>while industrial managers (Agent) have very little if any incentives to apply inventions accomplished with the TRIZ system.
Lmao why? Do you even know what TRIZ is? Are you a troll?

>>2619180
You were baited into posting an undisguised clanker post (which you did) and therefore it can be logically deduced that your original post is also AI. I mean why are you even here?

>>2619182
>Why?
Both are acting in their self interest. Democratic decision making wants to preserve their jobs (if workers are included) or their political power (if its only politburo is deciding). Not to mention democratic decisions are mostly vibes based and specialist opinions are disregarded. For managers they want to preserve their managerial position and livelihoods.
>you are le trolle baiting
Can we stop this shitposting and talk like adults?

>>2619190
>Both are acting in their self interest. Democratic decision making wants to preserve their jobs (if workers are included) or their political power (if its only politburo is deciding). Not to mention democratic decisions are mostly vibes based and specialist opinions are disregarded. For managers they want to preserve their managerial position and livelihoods.
Self interest is fundamentally how a market economy operates, in fact, most arguments against planning boil down to it. And to the same degree the "market" acts vibe based which why fads like fidget spinners existed. It is often critiqued how certain managers and planners couldnt act more according to their self interest which disincentives rewards leading to stagnant outcomes. (I am not a native english speaker so this might not be completely grammatically correct)
I would argue the opposite. Any attempts to further incentive various actors to act more accordingly to their own self interest from the 1950 onwards ended in failures and lastly to the disastrous result of the dissolution. How do you think most managers ended up as some form of oligarch in the end? As the simple result of their own self interest.

>>2619202
>Self interest is fundamentally how a market economy operates, in fact, most arguments against planning boil down to it.
Its one of the strenghts of market economy. Other strenghts would be automatic price signals (already addressed), innovation (already addressed) incentives (not addressed), natural selection of businesses who operate on the market (not addressed). All of these strenghts must be matched if a planned economy is to be presented as a serious alternative to states like China.
>And to the same degree the "market" acts vibe based which why fads like fidget spinners existed.
It seems wasteful if youre not into fidget spinners etc. but markets can take these subjective consumer preferences into account unlike USSR planned economy could.
>It is often critiqued how certain managers and planners couldnt act more according to their self interest which disincentives rewards leading to stagnant outcomes. (I am not a native english speaker so this might not be completely grammatically correct)
Neither am I but understanding is more important than perfect grammar.
>I would argue the opposite. Any attempts to further incentive various actors to act more accordingly to their own self interest from the 1950 onwards ended in failures and lastly to the disastrous result of the dissolution.
We cant yet change human biology so we have to work around these problems. How do you fit together the interest of the collective with the interest of the individual. There has some kind of carrot/stick mechanism in planned economy which In my opinion not hard to achieve.
>How do you think most managers ended up as some form of oligarch in the end? As the simple result of their own self interest.
Soviet planners were too ideological instead of scientifical when it comes to human psychology. All these wishes and hopes need to dismissed in favor of scientific approaches to human behaviour and psychology.

>>2614941
But the NEP in the Soviet Union only lasted for a few years but years before stalin quashed it. China has been doing it for 50 years. And even then it was far more limited in the USSR than in "Communist Billionaires" China.

>>2619217
In my opinion this was a mistake. No consumer based light industry was built and the quality of life of USSR citizens was low as a result.

>>2619217
China is a very different society in a very different position. There was already a powerful and concentrated proletariat in Russia and that made it possible for it to create a class situation where the peasantry's petty bourgeois impulses weren't entertained as much. The peasantry itself also had a very long-standing communal culture that was only broken up relatively recently and that process was still going on, if in the last phases, in fact it was one of the reasons Bolsheviks took power. Chinese peasants had thousands of years of private property so that's not as easy to snuff out in a short amount of time. Soviet Union itself went along with different solutions in countries like Poland because that's the point of local parties, they adapt to local conditions.
That's not to mention the very different external situation. China managed to infiltrate the capitalist camp, "market socialism" could only provide the growth it did because of the relationship between China and imperialist powers. Very few socialist countries have that opportunity, Cuba and North Korea would have probably preferred to have the kind of relationship it has with the west but they are not given the choice. Neither was Soviet Union given a choice at any point in time and even with all the revisionist wrecking and capitalist destruction countries like Russia or Belarus still have a higher GDP PPP per capita (won't for long of course, but people should keep Chinese achievement in context).
The Soviet model is generally far better and far more applicable to most countries but China had an opportunity to industrialize in a different way and crush western production while at it, that's awesome and we should all be glad they did it.
>>2614940
No, it was a unique situation. China is a very unique country in many regards. Also people tend to overstate how important the market is in China or was during NEP, the party still always has the final say and does anything it deems fit like crashing the housing market on purpose and no doubt pissing tens to a hundred million antiproletarian elements that bought several apartments for the sole purpose of storing wealth.

>>2619124
>the least
its not a problem. it doesnt exist.

>>2619216
>innovation (already addressed) incentives (not addressed)
like many pro capitalist arguments that devolve into "not real capitalism" when faced with reality, these models expect an ideal market that not only surely does not exist in the age of imperialism with monopolies, never actually existed historically either. monopoly capitalism also does not provide for innovation or inventives


Unique IPs: 35

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]